 Okay, the time is 732. So good evening, my name is Christian Klein. I'm the chair of the Arlington zoning board of appeals. I had to call this meeting for Tuesday, March 9, 2021 to order. I confirmed that all members and anticipated officials are present. So members of the zoning board of appeals, Roger Dupont. We can't hear you though. Here. There we go. Okay. Patrick handlin. Yeah. Thank you. Kevin Mills. Here. Thank you. Sean or work. Here. Thank you, Sean. Aaron Ford. Here. Thank you. And Steven Revoli. Here. Perfect. The town officials were pressing our Rick Valorelli. Here. Here. Vincent Lee. Wonderful. I don't think there's anyone else representing the town here. And is there someone here. Peering for one 90 to 192 missing guy Parkway. Yes, sir. John Bavuso from the Nelson group. Perfect. Thank you, John. Okay. Excuse me. So this open meeting of the Arlington zoning board of appeals is being conducted remotely consistent with governor Baker's executive order of March 12, 2020. The order suspends the requirement of the open meeting law to have all meetings in a publicly accessible physical location. Further, all members of public bodies are allowed and encouraged to participate remotely. Public bodies may meet remotely so long as reasonable public access is afforded so the public can follow along with the deliberations of the meeting. The public meeting will be held on the agenda. An opportunity for public participation will be provided during the public comment period during each public hearing. For this meeting. The Arlington zoning board of appeals has convened a video conference via the zoom app with online and telephone access is listed on the agenda posted to the town's website, identifying how the public may join this meeting is being recorded. And it is being broadcast by ACMI. Please be aware that attendees are participating by a variety of programs. Please be aware that other folks may be able to see a video conference. Other participants are participating by computer audio or phone. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see you, your screen name or another identifier. Please take care not to share personal information. And if you broadcast may be captured by the recording. We ask that you please maintain the quorum during the meeting, including displaying an appropriate background. All supporting materials that have been provided members of the board. The public is encouraged to follow along using the posted agenda. As chair reserved the right to take items out of order in the interest of promoting an orderly meeting. We are starting this evening with several administrative items. These items relate to the operation of the board. And as such will be conducted without discussion by the general public. The board will not take up any new business. There will be the introduction of any new information on matters previously brought before the board. After each item is introduced, I will invite members of the board to make their motions. Please remember to mute your phone or computer when you're not speaking. Please remember to speak clearly. If members wish to engage in discussion with other members, please do so through the chair, taking care to identify yourself. And all votes will be taken by a roll call. So with that, move to item two on the agenda for this evening, which is the approval of the meeting minutes from our February 23rd, 2021 meeting. The meeting minutes were prepared by Rick Valerelli and distributed to the board for comment. Are there other any further comments that were not previously submitted. To Rick. Around seeing none. May I have a motion. To approve. So moved. Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Thank you. I'm going down the rolls. Roger Dupont. Patrick Hamlin. Seven mills. Hi. I. Aaron Ford. Even Revillac. Hi. Here. Both. Hi. Move this to item three of the approval of the decision for 64, Brattle street. So this was. was prepared by Patty Hanlon. I was distributed to the board for comments. Are there any comments from the board that were not previously submitted to the board? Seeing none, Mr. Hanlon may have a motion to approve. Chairman, I approve that the board approved the final decision that was circulated earlier today in docket number 36.05 in the matter of 64 Braveston. Now the second. Second. Mills, Mr. Dupont, how do you vote? Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. The chair votes aye. That is a unanimous decision. That moves us to item number four. Does the approval of the decision for 36 Surrey Road. So those, the decision was prepared again by Mr. Hanlon and distributed to the board for comment. Are there any comments that were not previously submitted to the board? Seeing none. Mr. Hanlon, may I have a motion? Chairman, I move that the final decision in the matter of 36 Surrey Road docket 3648 be approved. Thank you. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mills. Roger Dupont. Aye. Patrick Hanlon. Aye. Kevin Mills. Aye. Aaron Ford. Aye. And chair votes aye. That is a unanimous decision. Moves us to item number five, which is the final vote on the decision for 123 Westminster Avenue. The decision, the written decision was prepared by Patrick Hanlon, distributed to the board for comment. Are there any comments from the board that were not previously submitted? Seeing none. Mr. Hanlon may I have a motion? Chairman, I move that the board approve the final decision in 123 Westminster Avenue docket number 3649. Thank you. Second. Second. Mr. Mills. Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. O'Rourke. Aye. The chair votes aye. That is a unanimous decision. Thank you all very much. Mr. O'Rourke, I know you need to go, so thank you for sticking with us through that part. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. All right, take care. So I have, so with the absence of Mr. O'Rourke, I have asked Mr. Revlak, who is one of our associate members to serve on the board today as its fifth vote. So that brings us up to the next item on our agenda, which is item number six, docket 3651, 190 to 192, excuse me, Mystic Valley Parkway. So we're now turning to a public hearing on tonight's agenda and here's some ground rules for effective and clear conduct of tonight's business. After I announce the agenda item, I will ask the participants to introduce themselves and make their presentation to the board. I'll then request that members of the board ask what questions they have on the proposal. After the board's questions have been answered, I will open the meeting for public comment. After the close of the public comment period, the board will discuss their findings and craft a draft decision. The vote taken in this hearing will be conducted by a roll call vote. The hearing will be closed, but the vote will be preliminary until the written decision is before the board and voted upon in a subsequent hearing. So with that, we'll call forth the applicant for 190, 192 Mystic Valley Parkway. If you'll please identify yourself the record and tell us what you are requesting to do. Absolutely, good evening. My name is John Bavuso. I work for the Nelson Group contracting firm based in Medford. We are a premier home builder in the area. We specialize in taking older age tomes, revitalizing them, bringing them back into their splendor and making them a landmark in the neighborhood. What we are asking for now is permission to install a second driveway on our property as per the plans that we have prepared. We believe that a second driveway is going to afford both owners of these dwelling units, the exclusive rights and privacy to have their own driveway for themselves and their guests or in visitors. They can come home at night. They don't have to worry about the plows on the street. They don't have to worry about finding a space somewhere to park. They can pull them to their own driveway and walk into their house. So we have enough room on the property to do it. We can meet the setbacks. We have the dimensional requirements from the street intersections in between the driveways. We're also planning on removing the existing driveway, the concrete walkway around the back of the building in on the front, replacing it all with permeable pavers. We'll have raised planted beds along the side of the driveway, landscaping throughout the property. We wanna make this a show place on Mystic Valley Parkway. That's the gist of it. We are asking for a second driveway on this property. Okay, thank you. So I don't like go ahead and pull up the application package. Should be this one here. So this is the plan of the site. So from what I understand, and Mr. Voso, please, sometimes I have this incorrect. So this is currently the existing driveway and that will remain. No, sir. We're gonna remove that, right? Replace that with permeable pavers as well as that walkway around the back of it. Okay. We all want it to blend. We want it to fit in well and we want to cause no impact or runoff into the street or the surrounding neighbors. Will this area here sort of between the deck and the street, will that remain as permeable pavers or will that be landscaped? Small paver walkway to the side door right there. The rest of it is all landscaping. And then this is the proposed driveway here at the front. That's correct. And it says here, remove tree. Do you need to remove a street tree? No, sir. And I apologize. I don't really know why that's in there. I believe it was one of the preliminary drawings but I went out and double checked everything today. We're going to have at least 10 to 12 feet from the leading edge of the driveway to the tree. We'll be well clear of the tree. We've got five feet to the sewer manhole which isn't, I don't even see that on there but we will not remove a tree. I have tried to contact the tree warding. We've been playing phone tag. That section of the sidewalk has some significant heaving from the tree roots. So we would like to replace those concrete panels along the sidewalk but we understand that it may damage the tree. So we're trying to coordinate with the tree warden. We have hired a tree company to come out and look at it but no way will affect the driveway. We'll not bother the tree, any of the surrounding property. And then do you know the distance from the edge of the driveway to the stop sign? Any chance? I know to the end of the curb is 61 feet. So the stop sign is a little bit back from there. I don't have that on there to the utility pole. I believe the stop sign is actually on the utility pole. Well, to the utility pole where on the other side of the tree so I've got to be 28 feet roughly. I did not measure that dimension. Gentlemen, can you hear me? I can, I'm not sure who this is. Okay, for the record, my name is... Are you the applicant? I represent the applicant as well. You too, okay. Mr. Pavlis, I would like to introduce you. That's our civil engineer, sir. Ah, thank you. I think what the board is looking at is an old version of the plan. The driveway we are proposing will not remove that tree. And the opening from the utility pole to the, I'm gonna say the river's edge of the driveway. I can give that to you right now. The distance is approximately 14 and a half feet. So that's that 14 and a half feet. That's from where the driveway meets the street to the telephone pole. It's from the driveway to the telephone pole. Okay. Okay, so the street is from the property, from where the point of curvature starts from the radius of the street right away. It's about 16.6 feet away. Okay, so that's to the, where the point of curvature of the right away line radius begins as it curves towards Mystic Valley Parkway. Excuse me one second, but Tony on the plan I have, we contoured the driveway at the street edge. So it comes up right next to the fence line and then curves slightly to the right. So I think we're curving around the tree. May I suggest a condition to the permit that the tree remain? Okay. And then there's a couple of different citations for usable open space on this property. And so I'm trying to determine, trying to see if there has been a determination as to whether or not the addition of this drive interferes with the required usable open space. Yeah. We are actually approximately 65% open space on this lot sir. But not usable open space, which is a different definition. The usable open space has to be 25 feet in two, in at least two dimensions and cannot be less than 30% of the gross floor area of the house. So I know in one place in the application it says it's zero. Another place it says, I believe it says 1200. I think somewhere else it said it was 1469. So I'm not sure which is the accurate figure. And it's not delineated on the site plan. Well, we can certainly resubmit the site plan to you sir, if you consider a continuance with all of the open space and usable open space indicated. And the driveway, I guess it's at the rear of the property. How many vehicles can that accommodate presently? Two. 50 feet of length between right away line and the edge of pavement. Mr. Chairman, what's, can I ask a question about the width of the driveway? What's the width of the driveway right now? The existing one is 13 feet. Okay, it looks wider than that in Google Maps. I think currently it goes to the deck. So is the, has the deck been incorporated into the house? It has. It has, okay. They removed the deck and built. So that line you're looking at should also indicate proposed addition. Okay, so the, all right. So yeah, so there's several places where this plan is not consistent with current conditions. I'd like to, the app kind of also submitted today some photographs that you want to discuss those as well. Well, I just wanted to point out that although two driveways on one property is not the norm, it's certainly not uncommon in this neighborhood. There's seven within a three or four block radius. So I don't want to bring that up as a bad point just that several properties do have to do driveways. We're not asking for anything outside of the current norm. People coming home like to have their own driveway. They like to get off the street and park and walk in the house. Not it. Members of the board, are there questions or comments? Mr. Revillac. So, Mr. Chair, could you bring up the plans again? Absolutely. So with this, so this is, I'll start with a question probably for Mr. Valarelli being that this is on the corner of Park Street and the Mystic Valley Parkway. Would it be fair to assume that this would be considered a corner lot and subject to having two front yards? Yes. Okay, so the one, I understand what the goal of the proposal, but the thing I'm having a difficult time with is that this property being a corner lot has effectively two front yard setbacks, one on the Mystic Valley Parkway side and one on the Park Street side. Now our regulations for parking, and this is section 6-1-10-A specifically, prohibits required parking spaces from being between the front lot line and the minimum front setback. Rick, is that consistent, would you agree with that? That's true. So there is a provision for lots less than 6,000 square feet, but that doesn't apply here. I believe it exceeds 6,000. Yes, exactly. If this lot were smaller, we would permit required parking spaces on the longer of the two front yards. That's true. So which would be the Park Street side. I'm not seeing how we could get the required parking space. It seems like the required parking space would have to be on the side of, for the second driveway, would have to be on the side of the building where there's an annotation remove walk. Because that would bring it out of the two front setbacks. Is that a question for me, Mr. Rublock? That's an observation, but you could treat it as a question. No, I believe that's why the applicant is before the board tonight. Yes, sir. The DCR would not grant us a opening on Mystic Valley Parkway. And the driveway is 38 feet long. So we would be outside of the front yard setback. So then my next question is give this, why is this a special permit request and not a variance? I believe in the section sick of off street parking requirements, a special permit is required for a second driveway. A one or two family dwelling. Let's see. So this is that section. Okay, so. Chairman, if I can help the second paragraph of the section that Mr. Revolac, which is referring to is the one that specifically requires a special permit for a second driveway. Sort of a different subject matter from the one that Mr. Revolac reached on the way to paste. So this, now I see the section Mr. Hanlon is referring to. In no case may a second driveway for a single family, two family duplex or three family dwelling violate any other dimensional or density regulations for the district in which it is located. So they are, yes, but that says nothing. It doesn't really speak to the requirements in 6-1-10-A. Well, that is what 6-1 and the second paragraph, at least when I look at my version of the bylaw does is the preceding sentence that matters, which says you can't have two without a special permit and never more than two. It's an unnumbered second paragraph to paragraph A. All right. So just out of curiosity, Mr. Chair, could you bring up the plan again? There you are. And I'm wondering how much space there is between the building and the lot line on the eastern side of Mystic Valley Parkway. This side here? Yeah, that side. I have that right here. It's 14 and a half feet, sir. So there is enough room there, but the... Okay. DCR wouldn't allow us the curb cut, yes. Curb cut, yeah. The only way you'd be able to do it is by basically doing a 90-degree right turn, which would be no fun to back out of. And then we just would take away from the landscaping and the nature of the property. We want it to be a show place with a small roof deck on the second level. You look out over the river, it's just a very scenic location. Okay. All right, and I think that's all the... Those are all the questions I have at the moment. All right, thank you, Mr. Everlock. Mr. Chairman. Yes, please. So I have some of the same questions and I'm just trying to sort this out. So I do understand that the second unnumbered paragraph in 6.1.10A is really what we're really here for, in a sense, which is having a second driveway, but I also am trying to understand exactly how having that driveway and having parking in that driveway meets the rest of the requirements of the bylaw. And I'm just not clear about that in terms of how far in you can park from the front yard. Now, I understand it's a corner lot, but then again, it's in excess of the 6,000 square feet. So I don't know, maybe Mr. Valarelli, is the second driveway, the proposed driveway, as drawn, does that meet the requirements for parking in the front yard? Well, it's a tough situation, Mr. DuPollin. I suppose they could get one car that would be considered okay, where it would be beyond the front lot line on Park Street. So to answer your question, it's a tough situation. I don't see them getting two by definition of a parking space beyond the front yard setback for the requested second driveway. But again, because this situation is unique, that's why they're before the board tonight. So sort of to Mr. Revelak's point, there's somewhere around 14 feet or so to the lot line. And I'm just wondering if that proposed driveway were carried toward the lot line parallel with Mystic Valley Parkway. Does that solve any problem in terms of providing more parking? Is that a question for me, Mr. DuPollin? I'm sorry, yeah. So if there was a sum total of 36 feet in length, 18 for each car, yes, it would. So I don't know if the civil engineer is still with us and he can answer that question. So the question would be from the front of the structure that faces Pock Street to the very furthest pot of that lot line that runs parallel to Mystic Valley Parkway. What is that distance? Give me a second, I will. Well, could you, Rick, could you point out or someone point out exactly where you're talking about on the maps so that I can see it? Yeah, Christian, so if you can point to where it says downspout typical there at that corner and then just go straight back parallel to Mystic Valley Parkway and stop at that lot line, all the way back to the lot line, right, the distance from there to where it says downspout typical, if there is 36 feet, then in fact, that would be two legal parking spaces. Yeah. Excuse my interruption, but we could also widen the parking beyond the 20 foot spot. We're looking at 12 feet now. We could certainly make it 16 feet, which would allow for two spaces. Well, it would have to be 17, I think. 18 and a half, yep, sorry. So we're only widening that small section five more feet. Are you asking for a distance, a perpendicular distance to the closest property line or where it hits it on the curve? Property line. We have 44 and a half to the 2,108 radius perpendicular and to the other radius. Mr. Espadino, excuse me. I don't think that that's what Mr. Hanlon is asking. He's asking for the distance between where it says downspout typical, right where Christian has the marker, right back to the lot line, straight back to there. Okay, are we talking about the lot line with the neighbor, with Catherine Serrano, or are we talking about the Mystic Valley Parkway right away? Catherine Serrano. Oh, okay. We're about 39 feet. Mr. Chair. Yes, 38.92. Thank you. Sorry, just a follow up about Mr. Dupont. Yes. Does that address your question? Yeah, so my thinking is that I understand the rationale for the request for the second driveway. I just would like to make sure that it meets whatever the requirements are for parking under the bylaw. And the other question I have though is if the proposed driveway itself is altered from the plan that's shown, is that going to affect the open space calculations in a way that causes a problem? And I know that we still need to have some better definition of the open space. Right. But that was the next thought I had was say that the proposed driveway was enlarged in some dimension. Because I think Mr. Bavuso meant to say that you could widen the driveway at a point so that you could park the cars side by side instead of end to end. Could I clarify that that's what the comment was? That's correct, sir. If you would like us to show two parking spaces in the front, we could certainly do that. I don't want to take off more of the green space and naturally necessary. Right. Thank you. Okay. So just a review to this section here, which is 6-1-10-A, which is parking residential districts. The second sentence tells where parking spaces may be provided on residential property. So it reads, off-street parking is permitted in one, the side yard and rear yard on a paved driveway. And this parking space is neither the side yard nor the rear yard is the front yard. Or in the case of a corner lot, less than 6,000 square feet. This is a corner lot, but it's in excess of 6,000 square feet. So that exception doesn't qualify. Number two, in an attached or detached garage, which this is neither. Or three, within the foundation of a dwelling provided the garage is specifically designed to that purpose, and it's not that either. So by that sentence and that first paragraph, it appears that this is not a legal parking space. It's a residential area in the residential district. That's correct, sir. But if we could go to 6.1-1-10. Yeah, we're right there. So we could, but the problem is you can't put it, you can't park there. You could build the drive. It looks like you could build a driveway, but you're not, you can't park there. I see it. And again, I think that's why we're here tonight. Yeah, we're trying to provide the best we can for our clients. No, I understood. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could, and others more knowledgeable than I could correct me if I'm wrong. But I think the misunderstand, to me the misunderstanding here is the idea that the special permit in the second unnumbered paragraph that is aimed at one problem only and that is how many driveways you have. That special permit doesn't authorize a violation of the first unnumbered paragraph. That's a wholly separate issue. And we don't have the authority with the special permit to modify the requirement in the first paragraph of paragraph A. And the board will no doubt remember that we have on other occasions had to deal with this in the context of a variance. And it seems to me that that's what's necessary in order to be able, I mean, we could or couldn't separately do the question of two driveways there, but there would still be the violation and without a variance you wouldn't be able to use them. And I think that's the problem. Similarly, if there's an open space problem, it's a compliance problem and you'd have to find a separate authority for accentuating or creating non-compliance in the open space. So this one paragraph on special permits doesn't allow you to correct all the zoning sins. It only allows you to correct one and it may not be the most important one. Yes, sir, but could we look at 6.1.1? Yeah, that's up on the screen right now. 6.1.1 or 6.1.10 or 1.1? 6.1, sir, 6.1.1. 6.1.1, yep. It's a stretch, but item C allows for front yard parking under exceptional circumstances, which I would propose that since we were denied by DCR to put a curb cut where we wanted to put it, this may qualify us for that. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly. I have a question in this one other, if you could bring up the plan again. So I'm wondering what is, so the proposed driveway next to the rain garden, what is the distance from the edge of the driveway to the lot line on Mystic Valley Parkway? 61 feet. Hold on one second, sir. It's 61 for the building, correct? No, it's a little. Well, the reason, oh, I'm sorry? 49 from the outer edge by the rain garden to the street line. Okay, so in an R2 district, the front yard setback is 20 feet and the driveway would clearly be more than 20 feet away from Mystic Valley Parkway. Mr. Chair, could you go back to 6-1-10-A? And this is an area where I know that we've had to kind of struggle with in the past where 6-1-10-A, yeah, so the second sentence goes about talking about for single family, two family duplex and three family dwellings, off street parking shall not be permitted in the area between the front lot line and the minimum front setback, except on a driveway not exceeding 20 feet and with yada, yada, yada. Now then, so this is basically saying where you, it's stating a place where you can't park. Now then, as you get further into the paragraph, there's a list of three items stating where you can park. There's a gap between those two. And to me, this seems like one of those things that falls into the gap, where by the first, by the second sentence, the first sentence prohibits parking within the front yard setback, but here we have a driveway that's beyond the front yard setback and where, but the other, so take, what I basically just saying is not so many and not so many words is reading those two, I get a mixed message where one would be saying that this should be fine and the other one is saying, well, it's neither, it's not leading to an attached garage or within the foundation of a dwelling. I'm wondering if my other board members have any feelings about that. If I may, Mr. Chairman. So when I read that section that Mr. Revlax referring to, I think what that would be contemplating is if in fact you did have a driveway leading from Mystic Valley Parkway, right? To the up the side of the house. I don't know if you would agree with that, Mr. Revlax, but that strikes me that that's how that is sort of formatted that language so that you'd be driving in from Mystic Valley Parkway and I don't remember what you just said was the minimum front yard setback, but it sounds like from the way you're reasoning it, the distance from Mystic Valley Parkway to the dwelling itself exceeds the front yard, the minimum front yard depth. Yes. So by that description, if that were the case, then parking would be permitted in the area beyond the minimum front yard depth and the dwelling. If I understand that correctly. So what did you say the front yard minimum front yard would be? Is it 20 feet? 20 feet, yes. So we're thinking that the distance from Mystic Valley Parkway to the dwelling is in excess of that. Yes. So that the thought was, I thought that you were expressing that you could have parking beyond the 20 feet up to the dwelling, is that correct? And it's sort of a but for the fact that you can't get a curb cut on Mystic Valley Parkway. Because if you could get a curb cut, then maybe we wouldn't have the problem. Right. I don't know if other members think that that's accurate either, but I think it still gets us back though to the issue that I don't think under our sort of jurisdiction for a special permit, we have a right to grant parking without a variance based upon the way the section reads. So I understand the rationale for it, but I don't think that we necessarily have the authority. And somebody can tell me if they think differently, but that's what occurs to me. Okay, unless there are specific questions on the board, I'd like to open up for public comment. As the gentleman has been waiting patiently for a while here, I want to make that adjustment. So just before we switch over, so public questions and comments will be taken as they relate to the matter at hand, should be directed to the board for the purpose of informing our decision. Members of public will be granted time to speak, additional time may be provided, the discretion of the chair. Chair will ask members of public who have identified themselves by logging in through Zoom who wish to speak, traditionally raise their hand using the button in the reactions tab in the Zoom application. Those calling it by phone, please dial star nine to indicate you'd like to speak. You'll be called upon by the meeting host, you'll be asked to give your name and address for the record, you'll be given time for your questions and comments, all questions will be addressed through the chair. Once all questions and comments have been addressed or the time allocated by the chair has ended, the public comment period will be closed and the board and the staff will do our best to show any documents requested. So with that, Mr. Moore. Yes, Steve Moore from Piedmont Street. I have a question I'd like to ask through the board of the developer. I'm wondering when the building permit was issued, was this a change from a single family to a two family home? Mr. Bavuso? No, sir, it was always a two family home. We take two family renovated. Yeah, the whole section of town over there all seems to have pretty much the two families, all the same floor plan. At that time, when the renovation, when the building permit was issued, was a second driveway part of the plan for the building permit? Mr. Bavuso? I don't believe it was originally, we were looking at it and then we thought this would be great for each unit to have their own separate individual parking. So we went to DTR with our plans, we appealed to them, it took a few months, and they finally came back and said, no, we do not wanna grant another curb cut on Mystic Valley, even though our neighbor to the left and all of them down the street have the curb cuts on Mystic Valley. So there was no appeal through the state. So we're now in front of the zoning board. Okay, so the building was built and now subsequent, now that the fact the building is complete or at least the exterior part of it is complete, you're now requesting a driveway. We've done that before the board, yes. Right. Okay, well, my basic issue that I have with this is this is a dangerous intersection. This is one of the few street where the street comes on to Mystic Valley Parkway, one of the few residential streets that do exit like that without a signal or such. You're asking for a driveway that is very, very close to the intersection. As a matter of fact, it probably is right on top of the stop sign, which is there. There are three streets with Mystic Valley Parkway, Park Street, and I can't remember the name of the third one, all that come together at this one place. And now you're adding a driveway that would dump right into that intersection part of at least two of those three streets. I think we're creating a very dangerous situation here. My guess will be that if you were to go back and look at records and I really don't, this is anecdotal because I don't have the information, you would find that there have been a serious number of accidents already at this very intersection that you now wanna add a driveway to. So I would just like to have the board consider that in its thinking through whether or not a driveway at this point makes a whole lot of sense. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Susan Stamps. Okay, great. Thank you so much for letting me speak. I just, that's my address to the record. Yes, of course. I'm over at Annie Starlington also at 39 Grafton Street. And that's an area that I jog around a lot. So I'm pretty familiar with it. And I do agree with Steve that that driveway is awfully close to the intersection of Park Street and Miss Valley Parkway. I wouldn't wanna be backing my car out of that driveway and hoping nobody comes roaring around the corner onto Park Street. I, as a threshold request, it seems to me that there, this isn't a correct plan that you're looking at. I am on the tree committee and I'm not speaking for the tree committee, but three of us on the tree committee saw that it looked, we saw this plan for tonight and it looked like that tree right there near the corner was coming down because you can see that on the plan, the tree is right in the way of the driveway. And you may remember the famous incident a couple of years ago on Webb Cowet where the builder built the driveway and oops, then asked for the public street tree to be taken down. So we don't want that to happen again. I don't know where the tree is. I was just overlooking at it this evening. It looks, it's awfully close. It's very close to where that driveway is. And I would respectfully suggest that these applicants be asked to come back before the board, before the board makes a decision, the correct plant, excuse me, correct plan showing where the tree is located. And also, since we know that that tree is gonna be very close to the driveway, a sign off by the tree warden on exactly how the tree will be properly protected so it's not killed from the construction. I just don't know why the board would feel it has to make a decision tonight when it's not looking at a correct plan. So that's my first comment. Well, that was my second comment. Also a couple of other comments. I actually, I don't know if I'll be able to share my screen. I did take a photo of the existing driveway which goes off of Park Street. And I guess when they said that they could park two cars there, they meant one in front of the other. I think it's this view, right? Okay, so the one, can I just see if I can share mine? Cause I took a, oh, wait a minute, that's- This is the backside of the house on the eastern neighbor on Park Street. Okay, and so see where that, see where the white van is closer to the house in the driveway, okay. And you can see it's actually sort of a little bit to the left of the driveway because there's actually a big open area right there between the house and Park Street where you could easily park another car. So actually they can get three cars in there. And I took that a picture tonight and while I would love the practice of sharing my screen, I've got the picture right on my desktop. I don't know if I'll be able to do it without messing up. Let me stop my share. And Mr. Valorelli, can you allow me to stand for the screen? Susan, you're good to go. Oh, well, thank you. Let me try without making a fool of myself. Okay, so I'll do share screen. Let's see, it looks like I can't share my screen yet. It's, I'm trying to share the screen and it's telling me I can't. Yeah, well, everything on our end is allowing you so I don't know what's happening on that end. Well, let me try something else. Okay, thank you, Rick. The walla, Ms. Stamps's should be good to go, Susan. Okay, let's see, share screen. I don't, oh wait, here we go. Oh, this might work. Let's see, share. Would that work? No, let's see. No, it doesn't work. No, I don't know. Okay. I don't, I'm really sorry. Anyway, but if you just look at the plan, you can see that where the driveway goes in, if you look to the left of the driveway on the street side, there is about, there's more than sufficient width there that kind of looks like it's already paved. I don't really know if that's just hard packed soil with no greenery on it or what it is to the left of the driveway as you're looking in the driveway, but there's plenty of room there for, at least for one car. So they could definitely get three cars here and they could probably take out some of the greenery and put another car in next to it. Walking up the street, you'll see that actually several of the neighbors have done that with their houses. Is it instead of a long driveway going in, they've paved between the drive with the house and the street. And I'm not looking for more paving to happen and it would be nice if they could use permeable paving, but there are options, they've got options. And that's another reason why I don't think that the board should approve this plan tonight. And let's see if I can keep anything else. Yeah, I guess, yeah, I guess those were the points that I wanted to make. Thank you. Hey, thank you, Ms. Danves. Gail Dubois. Good evening. My name is Gail Dubois. I live at 83 Park Street. My house is the next property to the property we're discussing. And I wanted to ask first, maybe I misunderstood or misheard what Mr. Bavuso said, that the hatched part of the property that is the old driveway, I heard him say, I thought that that was going to be landscaped and no longer a driveway. Was that incorrect? Mr. Bavuso, can you hand that in, please? Further back, it's all pavers. We wanted to take out the asphalt, replace it with permeable pavers so there'd be no water runoff onto the street or neighboring properties. But on the line, that you are intending to have a two-car driveway there. It is right now, yes. Yeah, right. In the past, this was a four-car parking width where they have the deck marked on this they were able to get four cars side-by-side to tandem into that driveway. And by building into this area that is called the deck, they put in a substantial foundation and built back and Susan had a picture that actually showed it that the second floor has even more of an overhand. So clearly in the planning for this, there was what used to be parking for at least four cars became parking for two cars. The area that Susan is talking about where the truck was parked, I think that's packed earth. It is not part of the driveway that was there before. Actually, now that I think about it, this was previously two cars wide. So there's a little bit of asphalt over there, yeah. But I think they eliminated having all the parking in that one location in order to have a parking space with the confidence that they could get this second driveway. And I would say as a resident of Park Street that putting a driveway into Mystic Valley Parkway is really unrealistic. That's it for reasons of the way traffic backs up from River Street. There's a lot of traffic on that Mystic Valley Parkway. And I don't think anybody would like to back out there so that the backing out into Park Street is in some ways preferable, but it is the name of the street that also intersects at a funny angle is Coral Street. And a lot of through traffic comes on Coral. People who are coming from, let's say Medford Street, Coral, it becomes Hamlet, but there are a lot of people who cut through over to get to Mystic Valley Parkway. So there's a lot going on at that intersection. And it's hard to say whether that's a safe place that's a safe place to put a driveway, but in some ways it's safer than trying to back out into Mystic Valley Parkway. There's a lot of turning traffic coming from the Parkway into Arlington as well. So I guess I'm just curious to know how this is all going to look when it's done. It will be magnificent. It looks nice. I would comment that the way the side of the house is constructed, there is one entrance on the side nearest the driveway that's adjacent to my property. And I don't see it drawn on here, but you must have some sort of sidewalk or entrance paving that's gonna go up to the steps in the front door. Yes, ma'am, all permeable pavers will be planted in doing. Well, so one of my concerns was whether you were going to put up a fence at the back of the property that separates my property from your property. Well, we would certainly appreciate the time to come over and talk to you about that. I'm not sure who owns the fence, but... Right, I mean, because I think that I think a little advanced planning would help me. Of course. So... Any further? I'm sorry? Sorry, anything further? No, I really don't think so. Okay, thank you very much. Are there other members of the public who would like to address this? Ms. Stamps, you're requesting a second, please. Oops, you're on mute though. Thank you. Just a quick comment, it was instructive listening to Ms. Dubois who lives next door because she told us that actually it used to be a tandem car driveway where you could have two in the front and two in the back like I have in my driveway on Grafton Street, and I mean, it's great. But the builders themselves created this situation. They made it into a single tandem driveway by building the addition and they didn't ask permission before they built the addition to say, is this going to be okay? Are you going to let us put another driveway in somewhere? And it just feels like is that really the kind of... We really want to support that for someone making a change in their property causing the situation, which then means they have to come to a board to get special permission to construct something else. It just doesn't seem to me that that's good public policy. So I appreciate, thank you for your comments, Ms. Dubois. That's all. Thank you Ms. Stamps. Are there others who from the general public who wish to speak at this time? I believe Ms. Hamilton. Yes, my name is Catherine Hamilton and this is my husband Ken. We live at 80 Park Street. I can say that I am right across the street from Gale. So I can see at an angle the very lovely big house that was now put on the corner used to be a two family. Now it's a big two family. It is very nice. I like it very much. What I'm very concerned about and my husband is as well as that this street has a lot of children and parents and dog walkers. By children and parents, I mean in the morning they come up around Coral Street and come up Park Street on their way to Thompson. I do worry about another driveway on the street near the end as Susan has mentioned it. Or it was Steve Moore has said it is a very, very dangerous intersection. Since we've been here for 22 years, there's been, I've heard at least three accidents and probably some fender benders that I don't know of involving those the corner. I mean the spit out to Mystic Valley Parkway from Park Street and Coral Street. It just makes me nervous to think someone might be having to back out of that driveway and someone is whipping up either to Coral or Park Street because over the years our road, which is flat and takes you very quickly to the other side of town. So it's been like a cross street, like people use it to commute. So it is not a view callic place during commuting times, not during COVID. But so I just wanna put that out there that we have experienced fast drivers at that corner and it seems to me it's going to be even more dangerous with that driveway on our side, on Park Street. What my husband and I were thinking is that, oh, maybe he could go and have a circular driveway so that, I mean, a semi-circle so that he could come out on Mystic Valley Parkway. So to just eliminate that backing up situation, but apparently that's not allowed. So we're finding that out. And that's basically why we're here is to see what you might come up with for a driveway solution. Thank you. Thank you. Any others taking one last look around? Sir, may I address the board one more time? Just one last, one more second. Okay, so seeing no more, I'm gonna go ahead and close the public comment period. Okay, Mr. Bavuso. Yes, so I just wanna tell you and all of the neighbors that safety is our primary concern here. We certainly don't wanna create a dangerous situation. You know, we wanna make this safe for everybody. We wanna reduce all the congestion on the streets that we can. We don't want to put these new owners in any situation where they would have to encounter an accident backing out on the street. I mean, it could happen to any one of us that were back out of our driveways, but we're not gonna put a little driveway in and close it in so they can't see what they're doing. You know, we're very concerned about the people that we build for. Thank you. So I guess my first question for the board is so the plan that we have in front of us does not really show the proper existing conditions for the site. It's sort of a more, it's more sort of an existing site plan with the new driveway sort of added on. And obviously has an issue with the location of the tree, the area of the driveway on what would be, I guess the side of the property. And so just my first question to the board is just, do we have enough information at this time to move towards a decision or do we wanna ask the applicant to provide better information before moving forward? Chairman. Mr. Hanlon. I don't feel at all antagonistic to the applicant. And so there have been some sort of statements that are a little bit more aggressive than I would be, but it seems to me that we don't have before us plans that are accurate and we don't have before us plans that show the solutions to the problems that we were earlier discussing. It's one thing to be sitting here and talk about, well, there's this dimension and that dimension and we might do this and we might do that. This application has some serious zoning law problems and the plan should be showing us a solution to those problems. And it seems to me that apart from the fact that it's not what their current plan is, it's also one that doesn't adequately take into account the problems that we've had tonight. And just to name four of them, one is we don't know for sure whether this can be configured in a way to comply with the parking requirements of the very section that the applicant is moving under. If you went to, especially, and assuming that we could do this, assuming that you could get past that, it seems to me that many of the questions that have been raised by the speakers relate to public convenience and welfare. And I'm not sure I would be able to say on the basis of the information we have before us that this is consistent with that. They've raised this traffic congestion and pedestrian safety. And I don't think that we have an analysis before us, apart from the plans themselves of what the implications are of where the driveway is located and the accident history, and the very peculiar geometry of this intersection that enables us to find with any confidence that there won't be a pedestrian or at a generally a traffic safety issue. And those things kind of were just, these fish just ain't ready to fry. I don't think that I would be able to vote in favor of this on the basis of the record that we now have. I'm not convinced that at best, it complies with the bylaw, but even if it does, I'm not sure that it meets the special permit conditions. And I think that the applicant ought to take the opportunity if he wishes to pursue this, to sit down with Mr. Valerelli's people with inspectional services and to work out the difficulties. I guess the other thing is that we don't have a report from the planning department in our file, or if we do it, I didn't find it. And I would certainly think that before venturing very far, I'd like to hear what the opinion of the planning department is on several of these issues in particularly the traffic issue. Thank you, Mr. Nard. Sir, if I may, Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to come back with an approved plan in some study on what it looks like. We would certainly go to the planning department, right, for their input on this. I apologize for the plan that the only thing I can say is as we had waited months for DCR to get back, we've been in an early rendition that I submitted. So if you would grant us a continuing, so come back with improved plans, we'd be glad to try and address all of the concerns raised here tonight. Well, thank you for that. Other members of the board, are there other questions or comments, Mr. Revlak? Yes, I just have one question. I visited the site on Saturday afternoon, and I'm wondering if the location of the dumpster is approximately where the second parking lot or second driveway is being requested. It would be in that area, sir. I don't know exactly where the dumpster is sitting on Saturday. I mean, when they bring in one and take out another... Right, right, right, right. But basically the route to drop the can off and pick the can off is where the driveway would be more or less. It would be, I think, closer to the house than what the dumpster is situated most recently. Okay, thank you. So this is sort of looking, I think, straight on in that area. That would be... Yes, exactly. So you can see where, you know, at least three to five feet to the right of the sewer manhole, and the tree is another 10 feet beyond that to the left. We have space there. And again, we'll be glad to revise the plans of bringing the most current information that we have. Do I have... It sounds like the intent at this point from the board is to request a continuance to allow the applicant time to repair the plan and time for the board to talk with the planning department in regards to the applicant's request. I just wanted to follow up quickly. Mr. Valarelli, I know you had reached out on my behalf to the engineering division to see if they had any statements about the proximity of the proposed driveway to that intersection. Did they ever respond to you? They did. So the rule of thumb with engineering, it's an unwritten law that they abide by the traffic visibility section of the bylaw. Okay. The 20 foot distance between the point, the very point of the corner, heading back in this case down Mystic Valley Parkway down Park Street, those two areas connecting with a tangent in between, nothing can be greater than three feet to seven feet. I'm quoting the bylaw by memory, but that's the area that they like to be free and clear. Okay. So they have no other regulation in terms of proximity to the stop sign or anything like that. They do not. Okay. So Mr. Chairman, if I could, that's a section 5.3, point one, two, traffic visibility. I have three, one, two. I have a, I guess I have a motion from the board to continue. Chairman, do we have to do this to a date certain? Which case we would need to set a date certain. This is a board currently has hearings scheduled for the 11th, which is obviously too soon. We have a currently a hearing scheduled for the 16th. It's just a week from tonight or the 23rd, which is two weeks from tonight. Mr. Buluso with two weeks from tonight, be okay for you? Absolutely, sir. Okay. That would be a continue to March 23rd. That's 7.30 PM. Well, really, do we have anything else on the 23rd apart from 1165R? We do. I want to say we have a couple of residential requests for special permits, but I'll have to get back to you, Mr. Chair on that. Okay. Have a quick comment. Is it possible that I say a little quick? We had the public comment period earlier. Sorry. Okay, no problem. Thank you. So the motion before the board is to continue the date certain of March 23rd, 2021, 7.30 PM. Do I have a second? Second. So Mr. Dupont. Aye. Mr. Hanlon. Aye. Mr. Mills. Aye. Mr. Revillac. Aye. And the chair said aye. So that is a unanimous vote. We are continued on this matter, which is the end of our agenda for this evening. So thank you all for your participation in tonight's meeting of the Arlington Zoning Board of Appeals. Appreciate everyone's patience throughout the meeting. I just wish to thank Rick Valarale and Vincent Lee for their assistance in preparing for and hosting this online meeting. Please note that for the purpose of the board's reporting, the meeting is, excuse me, please note that the purpose of the board's reporting to the meeting is to ensure the creation of an accurate record of the proceedings. It is our understanding of the recording made by ACMI will become available on demand at acmi.tv within the coming days or weeks. If anyone has comments or recommendations, please send them via email to zbaatown.arlington.ma.us. That email address is also listed on the ZBA website. To conclude tonight's meeting, may I have a motion to adjourn, please? So moved. Thank you, Mr. Hanlon. Second? Second. Thank you, Mills. All those board members in favor, please say aye. Aye. Board members opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Babusso. Thank you. Thank you all.